This past week, residents of Castle Rock celebrated the lighting of the star on “the rock.” The streets were jammed with thousands of people, and everyone was happy, smiling, sampling the foods offered by vendors. It was a good evening out.

Very few people realized that they were being watched by a drone hovering overhead.

It’s bad enough that the NSA is watching us and listening to everything we do; must we have that same scrutiny at a town celebration?

Burt DeGraw, Castle Rock

This letter was published in the Nov. 26 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

I read with interest your article regarding Sen. Mark Udall’s efforts to require transparency and disclosure to the American people regarding the practices of the National Security Agency after the 2001 terrorist attacks. It is refreshing to read of a U.S. senator concerned about the interests of all Americans. It is sad that he will no longer be a reasoned voice in the Senate. Nonetheless, I look forward to his successor in office, Cory Gardner, working together with Sen. Michael Bennet, to address the other large issues of our day — climate control, immigration and disparity of wealth. As these issues are confronted, I will be asking: WWCD (what will Cory do)?

David S. Knudson, Loveland

This letter was published in the Nov. 19 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

The chief of the National Security Agency now says he knows of no better way to help protect the U.S. from foreign threats than with massive spying programs.

The NSA is already treating us like criminals by collecting billions of our phone and Internet records. Why not simply lock us all up in prison? Then the NSA would know exactly where we were and what we were doing. I’m sure in his twisted mind there could be no safer place.

With a little imagination, they could sell it as an expansion of Homeland Security — a jobs program.

John Walker, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 16 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Ruth Marcus writes that President Obama is not as lawless as Republicans would have us believe. She correctly dismisses the non-issue of prosecutorial discretion, reasonably accepts his regulatory flexibility, and acknowledges the need for recess appointments. Ultimately, she appears to conclude that the “lawless” claim by Republicans is unfounded.

How simple it is to gloss over unreasonable searches conducted by the National Security Agency on Americans’ Internet and telephone communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, Republicans do not complain about these broad, warrantless searches because that program was begun by the previous (Republican) administration. It would be ludicrous to see them impeach the president for these lawless, unconstitutional acts when they failed to impeach George W. Bush for the same acts. Therein lies the rub.

Liberals are faced with a desire to protect the Constitution by impeaching the president for creating this surveillance program, yet it is too late to impeach Bush. Meanwhile, liberals would not see Obama impeached for his other putative transgressions. It is a conundrum too easily dismissed by Marcus. However, her conclusion that the current administration is not “lawless” strays far from reality.

Lou Bluestein, Centennial

This letter was published in the Sept. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

U.S. Army General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency. (Jonathan Ernst, Reuters)

It is time to roll back some of the unchecked power of the myriad security agencies that we know of. The wholesale spying on American citizens must end. The intelligence gathering must be targeted, warranted and justified. That our intelligence/security agencies serve a vital purpose is unchallenged. What is challenged is the wholesale betrayal of our trust. Much like voting, if the populace of this country lets our government step on our privacy without protest, we are in effect giving them our permission by our silence. Balancing freedom and defense is of immediate and vital concern.

Our security agencies must be free to do their jobs, but let the process be a reasonable one, not an indiscriminate sweep of what should be private communications.

It seems to me that we (all generations older than the millennials) generally have no beef with the National Security Agency, or whomever, reading our mail or listening in on our phone conversations because we don’t say or write anything worth listening to or reading. The younger generations are also saying and writing nothing important, but they think that the descriptions of their daily routines, including most bodily functions, is of vital interest.

The so-called “slippery slope” argument is not persuasive to me, because I doubt that any of us will ever say, or write, anything of great importance. I include this letter.

J. Bruce Laubach, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the June 25 edition.

For readers who feel pretty good about the U.S. program of telecommunications surveillance: Try a thought experiment and substitute “China” for “the United States” in the recent stories about NSA information collection. For example: “It was revealed that China collects all the worldwide Internet data on every individual and organization on the planet. At its discretion, it will decide whether to investigate the detailed content of that data in order to keep us safe from terrorists’ attacks.”

Do you still feel pretty good?

Janet MacKenzie, Denver

This letter was published in the June 25 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

People prepare to cast their ballots inside polling booths in the 2012 U.S. presidential election on Nov. 6 in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. (Rogerio Barbosa, AFP/Getty Images)

The American people went to the polls in 2012 lacking the information needed to make an informed decision. They didn’t know about the IRS targeting conservatives. They didn’t know about the Benghazi scandal. They didn’t know about the unprecedented gathering of people’s phone records and e-mails. They didn’t know about the attempt to intimidate Fox News. What is frightening is how all of this was suppressed prior to the election. If the public can be shielded from such information, how can we make informed decisions on who should be our leaders?

James Gehrke, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the June 21 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Thank you, Sen. Mark Udall, for standing up to the power base of both parties and for questioning the government’s unconscionable assault on our civil liberties. Better late than never. It is unfortunate, however, that it took the actions of a low-level NSA contractor to bring this situation to the forefront.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others cavalierly assert that the NSA’s surveillance of law-abiding citizens is “lawful.” Seriously? Of course it is. All you need to do is enact legislation approving tyranny and, as if by definition, tyranny becomes lawful. Add to that a “secret interpretation” of the law. Lawful? How are citizens supposed to abide by the law when it is subject to secret interpretation? It doesn’t get much more arbitrary than that.

We may have less to fear from the terrorists than the overreaching zealots who would suspend the Bill of Rights. I understand the motivations of the former; I am less sanguine about the motivations of the latter.

Richard Mignogna, Golden

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

At a congressional hearing on March 12, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper’s response? “No sir.”

Thanks to the courageous actions of Edward Snowden, we now know Clapper lied.

If President Obama truly “welcomes a debate” on the NSA secret spy program on American citizens, he now has the opportunity to demonstrate his good faith by firing Clapper.

Christopher Dugan, Denver

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

What should we do with Edward Snowden and his leaky likes? Punish or reward them? Perhaps it should depend on whether they can prove their allegation that the government has broken the law. Convince the jury (or the commission, or whatever) and you’ll be honored as a whistleblower; fail to do so and you go to jail as a thief.

Brad Bohland, Denver

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.